18
$\begingroup$

Given a finite set of fields $k_1, \ldots, k_n$, is there a (commutative with $1$) ring $R$ with (maximal) ideals $m_i$ such that $R/m_i \cong k_i$?

To prevent things from being too easy, I require two conditions on $R$:

  1. $\operatorname{Spec}(R)$ should be connected (otherwise take $R = k_1 \times \ldots \times k_n$)

  2. $R$ should be Noetherian (otherwise take $R$ to be a polynomial ring over $\mathbb{Z}$ in sufficiently many variables)

I would be happy with the case $n = 2$ (although I don't currently see how to get the general case from this). However, I do insist that the fields be arbitrary - it is known that any finite collection of countable fields is the set of residue fields of a PID (see this article by Heitmann - first page only).

(I've included the algebraic-geometry tag in hopes for some geometric insight. If however someone feels that this is sufficiently non-geometric, feel free to edit the tags.)

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
8
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The question mathoverflow.net/questions/162030/… and its answers contain partial answers to your question. $\endgroup$
    – Olivier Benoist
    Commented Jul 14, 2014 at 20:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @OlivierBenoist: Thank you for linking to that question. However, I don't think that any of the answers there actually resolve this question. The gist seems to be that if condition (1) were upgraded to being a domain, then the answer is negative $\endgroup$
    – zcn
    Commented Jul 14, 2014 at 23:06
  • $\begingroup$ It is possible to apply the lemma contained in user46855's answer to this question to the reduced irreducible components of your connected noetherian scheme. Unless I'm mistaken, it proves that the answer to your question is negative if k_1 (say) has cardinality much bigger than k_2. $\endgroup$
    – Olivier Benoist
    Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 8:09
  • $\begingroup$ @OlivierBenoist: As far as I can see, this only implies that the two closed points must lie in different irreducible components $\endgroup$
    – zcn
    Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 8:11
  • $\begingroup$ Yes but since your scheme is connected, you can join your two points by a chain of connected components and apply the lemma as many times as there are connected components in the chain. $\endgroup$
    – Olivier Benoist
    Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 8:18

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
9
$\begingroup$

This answer basically fills in details in Oliver Benoist's comments: If $K$ and $L$ are fields with $|L| > |K|^{\aleph_0}$, then $L$ and $K$ cannot be residue fields of $R$, with $\mathrm{Spec}(R)$ Noetherian and connected.

Proof: Suppose otherwise. Then there is a sequence $K = F_0$, $F_1$, $F_2$, ..., $F_r = L$ of residue fields of $R$, and of irreducible components $\mathrm{Spec}(R_1)$, $\mathrm{Spec}(R_2)$, ..., $\mathrm{Spec}(R_r)$ so that $F_i$ and $F_{i+1}$ are quotients of $R_{i+1}$. By the previous answer, $$|F_r| \leq |F_{r-1}|^{\aleph_0} \leq (|F_{r-2}|^{\aleph_0})^{\aleph_0} \leq \cdot \leq ( \cdots ((|F_0|^{\aleph_0})^{\aleph_0}) \cdots )^{\aleph_0} = |F_0|^{\aleph_0 \times \cdots \times \aleph_0} = |F_0|^{\aleph_0}$$

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, perfect. I must admit it was my own ignorance of cardinal arithmetic that prevented me from seeing this very clean and straightforward argument (i.e. the last two equalities). Many thanks to Olivier Benoist as well. $\endgroup$
    – zcn
    Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 16:42
  • $\begingroup$ However, this immediately raises the question: is every Noetherian connected ring a quotient of a Noetherian domain? This answer shows that the type of example given before will not work anymore. Do you (or anyone) see a quick answer, or should this be a separate question? $\endgroup$
    – zcn
    Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ Not obvious to me, and should definitely be its own question. My guess is yes. $\endgroup$
    – David E Speyer
    Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 17:06
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, I take that guess back. There are varieties over $\mathbb{F}_p$ that don't deform to characteristic zero, right? I don't know if there are affine examples, but probably. So take $X$ over $\mathbb{F}_p$ affine, unliftable to $\mathbb{Z}_p$ and with an $\mathbb{F}_p$ point $x$. Glue $X$ to a copy of $\mathrm{Spec} \mathbb{Z}_p$, where the closed point of $\mathrm{Spec} \mathbb{Z}_p$ glues to $x$. How could you embed this in a domain? In any case, it should be its own question. $\endgroup$
    – David E Speyer
    Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 17:30
  • $\begingroup$ Section 5 of iu.hio.no/~jank/papers/LiftGraded76.pdf exhibits a complete local noetherian ring over $\mathbb{F}_p$ which does not lift to a complete local noetherian ling over $\mathbb{Z}_p$. I haven't absorbed the example to understand well enough yet to understand what the adjectives complete and local are doing there. If they are removable, then I think we can use this to build a counterexample. $\endgroup$
    – David E Speyer
    Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 17:47
1
$\begingroup$

Embed every $k_i$ in a huge field $K$, and consider the subring of $k_1[t]\times \ldots \times k_n[t]$ consisting of $n$-uples $(P_1,\ldots ,P_n)$ with $P_1(0)=\ldots =P_n(0)$. Take for $\mathfrak{m}_i$ the ideal of $n$-uples with $P_i(1)=0$.

Edit : As pointed out in the comments, this construction works only in equal characteristic, and doesn't give a noetherian ring in general.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Note that the $k_i$ may have different characteristics, so such a $K$ need not exist, and then $P_1(0) = \ldots = P_n(0)$ does not make sense anymore $\endgroup$
    – zcn
    Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 8:00
  • $\begingroup$ I had great hopes for an example of this type though, and would be happy to see if it can be fixed $\endgroup$
    – zcn
    Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 8:07
  • $\begingroup$ Oops, sorry! Indeed this works only if char($k_i$) is constant. $\endgroup$
    – abx
    Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 8:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @abx I do not think your ring is going to be noetherian in general. If $n=2$, $k_1=\mathbb{C}$ and $k_2=\mathbb{Q}$, quotienting your ring by the ideal $I=\{(0,Q)\}$, you get the ring $A=\{P\in \mathbb{C}[t]|P(O)\in\mathbb{Q}\}$. But A is not noetherian as its ideal $J=\{P|P(0)=0\}$ is not finitely generated. $\endgroup$
    – Olivier Benoist
    Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 8:40
  • $\begingroup$ OK, you are right. $\endgroup$
    – abx
    Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 9:49
1
$\begingroup$

The answer to your question is basically yes. R. Heitmann proved in his thesis that under mild conditions there exists a PID $R$ with specified residue fields. The conditions will always hold if your collection of residue fields is finite, and each of them are countable.

See: http://www.projecteuclid.org/euclid.dmj/1077310578

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Nice reference, but your summary of Heitmann's paper is wrong. Hietmann's Theorem A requires the fields to be countable, so it will not "always hold if your collection of residue fields is finite". $\endgroup$
    – David E Speyer
    Commented May 26, 2015 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ This is also mentioned in the OP. $\endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    Commented May 26, 2015 at 18:23
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidSpeyer - Thanks for the catch! My fields are almost always countable, so I tend to forget that I'm assuming that. $\endgroup$
    – Cory C.
    Commented May 27, 2015 at 14:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .